arXiv cs.AI: Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? An Audit of Explanation Fairness

arXiv cs.AI: Do Saliency Maps Fail Dense Breasts? An Audit of Explanation Fairness

Ahmed Jaheen reports an audit of whether saliency maps locate cancers less well in dense breasts, where cancers can be hidden. On 1,345 malignant CBIS-DDSM views, the study scored three CNNs’ Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients and occlusion maps using lesion-hit rates and a chance-normalized lesion-to-background saliency ratio. Grad-CAM peaks hit 44% of dense-breast lesions versus 58% of non-dense lesions. Jaheen says case mix, chiefly the greater share of calcifications in dense breasts, explained about half or more of each gap; an average -0.56 bit gap remained for occlusion. Controls also implicated the classifiers: unadjusted gaps exceeded those from an image-only conspicuity map, and models relied less on dense-breast lesions. The findings complicate treating a saliency map as evidence that a classifier uses the cancer: the apparent gap partly reflects which lesions are in each group, while the reported controls suggest classifier reliance may also differ. Jaheen recommends reporting density gaps before and after case-mix adjustment, for each classifier, alongside conspicuity and lesion-reliance controls.

Publication: e55e91c9-3596-4ecc-8393-381f8dce3c1a

attribution — pass: The reading attributes the audit, findings and recommendation to Ahmed Jaheen, the sole listed author of the arXiv paper. The arXiv cs.AI label matches the publisher metadata, and the paper is cross-listed in cs.AI. Reported results are framed as the paper's claims ('Jaheen says', 'Jaheen recommends'), not as established fact.

Authors:Ahmed Jaheen

summary — pass: The reading faithfully covers the question, data, methods, headline gap, case-mix explanation, residual occlusion gap, controls and recommendation. It explains dense breasts and saliency maps' role as evidence. The '-0.56 bit' figure is not explained (the source notes +1 bit doubles the ratio). The source's word 'significant' was dropped. Both are minor. Fix: restore 'significant' and add a tooltip for bits. Technical terms are kept exactly for tooltips. The question is a genuine open issue.

a chance-normalized lesion-to-background saliency ratio (bits; +1 doubles it)

date — pass: The original publication date of 2026-11-04 matches the arXiv v1 submission date. The feed date of Nov 5 is later and is correctly not used.

[Submitted on 4 Nov 2026]

support — pass: All claims match the abstract: 1,345 views, three CNNs and three map types, 44% vs 58%, case mix explaining about half or more of each gap, the -0.56 bit occlusion gap, controls implicating the classifiers, and the recommendation. The interpretive sentence about complicating saliency maps as evidence is hedged ('suggest', 'may'). It rests on the abstract's framing that saliency maps are offered as evidence classifiers use the cancer. The limitation notes that only the abstract was available.

Saliency maps, offered as evidence that mammography classifiers use the cancer, are untested in dense breasts, which can hide cancers.

media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper. It is the original source and the easiest access point.